USA Kamala Harris Shuns California Governor Bid, Eyes 2028 Presidential Run

[webfact]

video screenshot

 

Kamala Harris, former vice president, has confirmed she will not be running for governor of California, quashing months of speculation. Harris, who played a pivotal role as Joe Biden’s vice president before becoming the Democratic nominee in 2024, shared her decision on Wednesday. “I love this state, its people, and its promise,” she said, expressing her deep connection to California.

 

Harris emphasised her commitment to public service, saying she will instead focus on supporting Democrats nationwide. “For now, my leadership will not be in elected office," she said. She hinted at further announcements in the coming months, suggesting a continued role in the national political scene.

 

The decision also keeps Harris’s options open for a possible 2028 presidential run. A source close to Harris expressed that she is keeping her options open for 2028. Although a gubernatorial run would not have barred her from a presidential bid, it would have placed certain limitations on her political capacities, reported NBC News.

 

The choice not to run for governor follows months of internal deliberation. Sources describe it as a difficult process for Harris, who seeks to maximise her impact. Her immediate plans include exploring nonprofit work and potentially establishing a political action committee (PAC). She is also gearing up to campaign for Democratic candidates in upcoming midterms.

 

Harris has a storied history in California, having served as the state attorney general and then as a U.S. senator. Her career took a national turn when she assumed the vice presidency after Biden’s 2020 election victory. In 2024, Harris stepped into the role of Democratic presidential nominee after Biden exited the race.

 

Her announcement opens up the governorship race, as term limits prevent current Governor Gavin Newsom from seeking re-election. Several prominent Democrats have already entered the fray, including Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, Xavier Becerra, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, among others.

 

The Democratic stronghold of California is likely to remain under the party’s control despite the competitive nature of the upcoming gubernatorial race. Harris’s decision not to enter the race preserves the opportunity for other candidates to carve their paths.

 

As Harris steps back from the governor’s race, she remains focused on shaping the national dialogue and engaging with issues on a broader scale. A person close to her insisted she would still be a significant voice in debates concerning Donald Trump and other national matters.

 

Harris’s future announcements are eagerly anticipated, with hints they might not pertain solely to the 2028 election. Her involvement in California’s political scene will continue, albeit from a non-elected position, influencing the Democratic discourse and supporting emerging leaders.

 

In summary, although Kamala Harris has chosen not to run for California governor, her political journey continues. Her efforts will remain focused on national issues and supporting the Democratic Party, potentially setting the stage for a 2028 presidential run.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from NBC News 2025-07-31

 

 

[daveAustin]

Gawd, her again. What a state of affairs. Trump-Biden(her)-Trump-her/Vance. Is there really no decent other option? It’s numpty after numpty after woke cringe etc. Get someone in with some class that gives a hoot about the people, or at least someone that can string a sentence together!

[DonniePeverley]

You've got to be kidding me. 

[dinsdale]

 No way she'll get nominated. Great news for Vance if she does though but bad news for us who will have to put up with her cackling idiocy in another campaign. 

[angryguy]

Slim pickins for the dems in 28. Newsome, AOC, i think kamala could have a shot

[Gsxrnz]

Maybe AOC will select Kamala as her running mate, thus halving their combined IQ level and providing the GOP with bucketloads of ammunition.  

[EVENKEEL]

20 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

 No way she'll get nominated. Great news for Vance if she does though but bad news for us who will have to put up with her cackling idiocy in another campaign. 

I like your optimism but, if you remember before ole Kammie came out pretty strong in the polls in the beginning. 

[dinsdale]

14 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I like your optimism but, if you remember before ole Kammie came out pretty strong in the polls in the beginning. 

I also remember CNN saying she was a clear favourite and would win. As we all know she was crushed at the election even after blowing $1.5 billion.

[Purdey]

AOC has more going for her. She challenged Trump to disclose his education transcripts and she would disclose hers. TACO!

[TedG]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The decision also keeps Harris’s options open for a possible 2028 presidential run.

LOL...LOL..LOL

[TedG]

7 minutes ago, Purdey said:

AOC has more going for her. She challenged Trump to disclose his education transcripts and she would disclose hers. TACO!

Who cares?  This does not even matter. 

[Gsxrnz]

[brewsterbudgen]

Depressing.  Newsom please.

[Jim Blue]

Perhaps her niece could have a go instead ?

[nick supreme]

Harris loss was due to sexism and racism. 

[JonnyF]

This is great news. I'm hoping for a trio of Harris, AOC and Gwen Walz.

 

 

Bring it on ladies. 

[tomazbodner]

I think no matter which side you are on, you can tell she has a snowflake's chance in hell to get elected President...

[EVENKEEL]

20 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Depressing.  Newsom please.

Absolutely, because he's made Calif a shining star. 

 

That's a joke son.

[Gsxrnz]

13 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Harris loss was due to sexism and racism. 

 

I think that in reality, Dumbasaphobia had more to do with it. 

[dinsdale]

35 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Depressing.  Newsom please.

Absolutely. Another loony lefty should do it. The radical woke left was totally rejected at the last election so good luck with that.

[dinsdale]

29 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Harris loss was due to sexism and racism. 

No. She lost because she's an idiot. 

[novacova]

40 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Harris loss was due to sexism and racism. 

Delusional 

50 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Newsom please.

Is this all they got? Depressing.

Why is the left always pathetically  inclined…

[JonnyF]

38 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Harris loss was due to sexism and racism. 

 

No, it was due to Dumbism.

 

Her temporary, exaggerated blackvoice/mannersisms when addressing black people was so cringe.

 

"Yo' betta thank yo' union memba, fo' vacation tiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmme". 😃

 

Please Lord, let her run again. Those few months were gold. Gold, I tell you. 

[sqwakvfr]

What the heck how about an AOC and Zoran ticket for the Dems 2028. Let them ge full board and Bernie and AOC. 

[impulse]

How embarrassing would it be for her to lose the governor race?  More prestigious (and profitable) to lose the 2028 presidential race.  Even if she never gets a primary win in her lifetime.  Ever...

 

If she was realistic, she'd be running for local dogcatcher, and keeping her fingers crossed she wouldn't be up against another Black woman.  Because that would remove any question of racism or genderphobia.  And let's face it, she's not going to get by on her looks any more...

 

 

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

If she was realistic, she'd be running for local dogcatcher,

 

If she was realistic, she would slink off into obscurity.

 

That Gravy train is just too much of a pull factor.

[bendejo]

Take a hint, you lost for a reason. 

Should go into human rights law, like Clooney's wife.

 

[proton]

1 hour ago, nick supreme said:

Harris loss was due to sexism and racism. 

 

Due to her incompetence and lies

[spidermike007]

The Dems made a tragic and historic mistake by not slapping around Biden 2 years ago and forcing him to step down, and allow a qualified younger and more dynamic candidate to step forward. They would be making an equally great mistake if they supported a Harris bid in 2028. She is horrific, and as a Centrist Dem I could not bring myself to vote for her, though I didn't vote for Trump either. Both were horrific choices. And Trump has certainly proven in the last six months just how terrible a choice he was. 

 

Harris is a disaster, utterly devoid of political wisdom, charm, and leadership qualities. The party should shun her like a contagious leper. 

[Lacessit]

IMO it is proved beyond doubt Americans are not mature enough to elect a woman as their leader. Especially one who is not white.

 

First Clinton, then Harris. How much more evidence is needed?